[Ryuukishi]

Further price drops will definitely help Sony reach out to more consumers... But I have to wonder why anyone at CAG specifically is concerned about a price drop. Between the Dell deals, Amazon sales, and the various credit card offers, we've seen any number of opportunities to snag a PS3 for far below retail. If you're reading this site and still waiting to pick one up, price isn't the reason.

[willardhaven]

Well I used the Dell deal to pick up a 360 Pro for <$250 so price is the obstacle for me.

I'd like to try and get a PS3 for <$250 as well.

[zenprime]

I hope there is another price drop. I'd like to pick up a second PS3 sometime.

[my2k2zx2]

Local Walmart still has a MGS4 80gb bundle in the case. Guess the PS3 doesnt sell too well in MI.

I wouldnt have got mine had it not been for the $150 off Sony Card deal back in September.

[Pootie Thang]

If there is indeed a price drop I'll pick up a 3rd one. Until then, I'm stuck with 2. Anyways, they should price drop so they will be more competitive with the Xbox 360.

[optimusprime8062]

I think people hate the PS3 because its hard to follow up to one of the best gaming systems ever...expectations are HIGH.

Im annoyed by a few things with the system, like say...the controllers analog sticks and sometimes it feels like there is a lack of REALLY awesome games like there were on the PS2, but I havent delved too far into it yet!

[Dr Mario Kart]

Sony is making the correct decision to not drop the price. They know that dropping the price never changes your market position. All it does is bring in a few fence sitters at a substantial cost.

There is no way to be price competitive with the 360. If PS3 drops, 360 can drop in retaliation immediately if they feel like it, nullifying their advantage.

Plus, having a little bit more marketshare at this point isnt going to shift the development community. Its not going to secure more exclusives. As long as they are still guaranteed multiplatform support, they should continue to turtle and focus on profitability.

If that ever begins to dry up, they need to launch a new machine.

[Malik112099]

Sony is making the correct decision to not drop the price. They know that dropping the price never changes your market position. All it does is bring in a few fence sitters at a substantial cost.

There is no way to be price competitive with the 360. If PS3 drops, 360 can drop in retaliation immediately if they feel like it, nullifying their advantage.

Plus, having a little bit more marketshare at this point isnt going to shift the development community. Its not going to secure more exclusives. As long as they are still guaranteed multiplatform support, they should continue to turtle and focus on profitability.

If that ever begins to dry up, they need to launch a new machine.

So instead of saying "Sony is fucked", you typed all that stuff out?

off topic: Sweet jesus how badass would it be for GoW III to have campaign co-op?

[Z_meista]

some time in the near future

[rickonker]

BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH FUCKING BLAH

Sony is in the fire and crying cause they are getting burned. Drop the price to compete so you get more consoles into homes and then crank out the AAA exclusives and start trying to make ends meet. Sony is between a rock and a hard place right now and need to do something. Something is NOT making the console cheaper to produce over the next few weeks/months/years/wtf ever and keeping the price the same. For fucks sake...at least charge $20 a year for PSN so that you can make it look like you are trying. Don't worry Sony - there are PLENTY of Thomas96's, TMK's, and Smiggity's that will pay for the service no matter how much it is.

How is Sony going to start charging for PSN? People who bought a PS3 expect a free PSN as part of what they paid for. If they try to start charging for it I would expect lawsuits.

[rickonker]

I think cutting PS2 BC was a big fucking mistake. "We're having trouble with the cost of our new console and it isn't selling well...so let's take out the feature that lets it play games from the best-selling console of ALL TIME. Yeah."

[Mana Knight]

I hope there is another price drop. I'd like to pick up a second PS3 sometime.

I'd pick up a second and maybe a third PS3 myself, but waiting until I get a job. I'd use one in another room (I could careless about PS2 BC, never use it on my PS3).

How is Sony going to start charging for PSN? People who bought a PS3 expect a free PSN as part of what they paid for. If they try to start charging for it I would expect lawsuits.

Pretty much. They have Qore and Home items which they've been gaining SOME money from, although it's still not enough either.

Malik is one of the first people I don't see paying $20 for PSN.

Further price drops will definitely help Sony reach out to more consumers... But I have to wonder why anyone at CAG specifically is concerned about a price drop. Between the Dell deals, Amazon sales, and the various credit card offers, we've seen any number of opportunities to snag a PS3 for far below retail. If you're reading this site and still waiting to pick one up, price isn't the reason.

Like I said before, Sony knows this, but they are trying not to lose a lot of money right now (does Lexus trying pricing their cars lower so they can outsell Honda? I don't think so). But yeah, CAGs can easily find a good deal on a PS3, from applying for a PS Credit card, buying one at Meijer during a General Merchandise sale, Dell.com sales, and so on. Sometimes there's a random 40GB deal.

[Furashu]

id say no just because the economy sucks and whoever has the money will buy one.

my prediction is if they cut it, the same people who wouldve bought it at todays price wouldve bought it anyways.

[Paco]

IN the February issue of Game Informer they said that the 80 GB PS3 would drop down to $299 in April but that it did not matter because they aren't any games worth playing anyways. It also said that when this happens Microsoft would drop the newest version of their 60 GB to $249 so yeah it looks like Apirl will be a good month to save up for.

The problem right there is that game informer is FULL OF SHIT. Their magazine isn't even worthy of wiping my ass. Game informer is propoganda for Gamestop. It would honestly never sell if it was to be sold on its own merits rather then as a gift for subscribing to the Edge program.

[TruthinessFC]

I think people hate the PS3 because its hard to follow up to one of the best gaming systems ever...expectations are HIGH.

Im annoyed by a few things with the system, like say...the controllers analog sticks and sometimes it feels like there is a lack of REALLY awesome games like there were on the PS2, but I havent delved too far into it yet!

If you do your research there's enough good games to me, but the PS3 really needs more quality RPGs and other genres to fill out the library... I guess that first part depends on your tastes and how quickly you play through games, though.

Also, comparing the PS2's quality(there was shovelware too) games to any current console seems like a losing proposition for the latter..

[optimusprime8062]

...but the PS3 really needs more quality RPGs and other genres to fill out the library...

Yeah, I guess really thats what I'm referring too, in a way (er..yeah). I was shocked when I looked through what RPGs are out for the PS3 and saw very few. Maybe it is still too early in the PS3's life though?

[Kayden]

I bought my PS3 as soon as they dropped it to $500 and I don't regret it one bit. It came with 5 blue ray movies and the blue tooth remote. I have it hooked up to my file server and I can watch HD video no problem. The scaler on the PS3 is exceptional. It blows the 360 away in terms of image fidelity.

I don't really use the bluray player for movies, but for games it's great. I've already played 4-5 360 games on THREE DVDs.

The hard drive is "only" 60gb, but I have full hardware backwards compatibility with the PS1 and 2.

I use my PS3 almost every day and couldn't be happier with my purchase. Do I see that it's expensive? Yeah, but there's a difference between expensive and overpriced.

Sony could do more to cut corners though. I don't think the backwards compatibility should have been cut, but the media reader is useless and I think the wireless is a bit redundant. I use gigabit wired for HD streaming and wireless just doesn't cut it. Wireless can also cut out by people moving, so that's a bitch for gaming. Should have made it an adapter and dropped the price.

Lastly. Do you know why the 360 is so cheap? Microsoft over spent on the Xbox1 and decided to cut every last corner on the 360. Those savings gotta cut into something... that being reliability. So yea, you can buy a 360 for $200, but how many are you going to wind up buying? My first died in less than a year, I luckily had a warranty, but that cost me $50. The 360 is a cheap piece of shit (with a nice controller and good games). In terms of quality, there is no contest that Sony is the most reliable. Even Nintendo has had some nasty issues with their ATI video chipset.

[naes]

I think cutting PS2 BC was a big fucking mistake. "We're having trouble with the cost of our new console and it isn't selling well...so let's take out the feature that lets it play games from the best-selling console of ALL TIME. Yeah."

Good job, you just listed one of the reason they took out BC.

[redline]

Lastly. Do you know why the 360 is so cheap? Microsoft over spent on the Xbox1 and decided to cut every last corner on the 360. Those savings gotta cut into something... that being reliability. So yea, you can buy a 360 for $200, but how many are you going to wind up buying? My first died in less than a year, I luckily had a warranty, but that cost me $50. The 360 is a cheap piece of shit (with a nice controller and good games). In terms of quality, there is no contest that Sony is the most reliable. Even Nintendo has had some nasty issues with their ATI video chipset.

There's something very wrong when there's an 87 page sticky thread in the 360 forum for RRODs. I love my Xbox1 but when it was time to choose between a 360 or PS3 the choice was pretty easy.

[Rafael122]

I've been a Sony loyalist since the Playstation 1. Trying to decide between the PS 3 and the 360, it was the first time I was thinking about not going with Sony when it came to a gaming console, but when I started reading up about all the hardware failures the 360 had, I ended up getting the PS 3. In the end, I'd probably spend more on getting my 360 refurbished than I would on getting a PS 3. It also helped that I got it when Amazon dropped the price $50 for one day. That was the biggest reason why I held out: price. Speaking from personal experience, they got me to buy one with a $50 price drop, imagine how many people would buy it if it went down to $299?

Rumor is April 1. Been reading that for the past few months. If it doesn't happen then, I wouldn't be surprised if it happened with God of War 3 came out, or when Uncharted 2 comes out. I'm thinking they will drop the price in time for one of their major exclusive games, and they have a very good list of exclusives this year.

[kurokubushi]

How is Sony going to start charging for PSN? People who bought a PS3 expect a free PSN as part of what they paid for. If they try to start charging for it I would expect lawsuits.

Nor really, Sony isent under leagal responability to keep PSN free, when you sign up for your PSN account theres a clause in there that says "we reserve the right to change the terms of service without notice" This would fall under that. I'm not saying that Sony would just start charging us out of the blue, I'm sure they would give us 6 months to a year notice if they ever ddi such a thing, witch I doubt they would.

[rickonker]

Good job, you just listed one of the reason they took out BC.

Oh I know, I'm saying it was still a dumb move. They should've figured out another way, or even better they shouldn't have gotten into that situation in the first place.

[rickonker]

Nor really, Sony isent under leagal responability to keep PSN free, when you sign up for your PSN account theres a clause in there that says "we reserve the right to change the terms of service without notice" This would fall under that. I'm not saying that Sony would just start charging us out of the blue, I'm sure they would give us 6 months to a year notice if they ever ddi such a thing, witch I doubt they would.

I don't know if that would be covered. Even if they could do it legally, they would piss off a LOT of people who actually bought their console, so I just don't see it happening.

[Kayden]

I don't think Live is worth paying for. There's no way I'd pay for the PSN.

I'm rather biased as a PC gamer though. What the hell does MS charge for? There are no hosted servers and the only bandwidth usage is for marketplace stuff.

Nor really, Sony isent under leagal responability to keep PSN free, when you sign up for your PSN account theres a clause in there that says "we reserve the right to change the terms of service without notice" This would fall under that. I'm not saying that Sony would just start charging us out of the blue, I'm sure they would give us 6 months to a year notice if they ever ddi such a thing, witch I doubt they would.

[Malik112099]

Malik is one of the first people I don't see paying $20 for PSN.

Actually, Malik would pay $50 a year as long as good exclusives come out with fun multiplayer aspects. If more games like R2 and K2 keep coming out with great multiplayer I don't care if they start charging what XBL does. I am not stuck on the "principal" of it like a lot of other people are. Great multiplayer gaming on 2 platforms for a MSRP of $100 a year ($8.34 a month) is a great deal. $20 for PSn would be spectacular as long as the goods are delivered by Sony.

See TMK, I'm not a fanboy - I just like playing good games.

[kurokubushi]

I don't know if that would be covered. Even if they could do it legally, they would piss off a LOT of people who actually bought their console, so I just don't see it happening.

Neither do I, I was just saying that If the really wanted to they could. start charging for it, and theres nor really much anybody could do about it.

[farfus]

Unfortunately it seems that the American public doesn't share your opinion of the fairness of the price, or else it would be selling much better. A price drop seems necessary at this point. A lot of good exclusives have already been released for the system, I can't imagine a game that will push a hugh number of people over to the $400 PS3 camp.

I know i immediately considered a 360 when they dropped their core price and feel a $100 or more price drop will make the ps3 much more desireable to the general public...

[Mana Knight]

I think cutting PS2 BC was a big fucking mistake. "We're having trouble with the cost of our new console and it isn't selling well...so let's take out the feature that lets it play games from the best-selling console of ALL TIME. Yeah."

They had to because the truth is, the costs to add PS2 BC would put PS3 at the $500 range at the cheapest. If people feel $400 is already too expensive, just how would you think PS3 would be doing right now if the cheapest SKU was $500 just to add the PS2 BC. Sony's initial plan was to keep it, but due to slower than expected PS3 sales along with people complaining the PS3 was priced too high, that's why Sony had to remove it. If people never complained about the PS3 pricetag in the first place, it would have never been removed.

For the most part, it actually did more good than harm, because I know MANY PS3 owners who jumped on the $400 pricetag, saying PS2 BC didn't matter to them. If PS3 was still $500 right now just to add that feature, there's no way they would have jumped onto buying a PS3. Like I explained in many posts before, adding the PS2 BC is not cheap. If it was 100% software like the PS1 emulator, they could have added it at no extra costs. But since PS2 BC requires at least a GS (because no console GPU out there has a high enough fill rate to emulate it) along with other components, that brings the costs up, PCB size increases, and so on. Sony's goal now is to also stick with one SKU configuration, and since people want a cheaper PS3, that's why PS2 BC was removed and never coming back. Let's just say adding the PS2 hardware components costs around $50 (It's being said to cost around $50-$75 to add). Sony sells 10 million PS3 40GB/80GB Core/160GB PS3 consoles at $400. Sony would have lost an extra $500 - $750 million extra in their gaming division just to add it. Since Sony is still producing PS2 consoles and making a small profit off of every one, that was another reason for them to remove it because if someone buys a PS3 just to buy/play PS2 games, Sony has lost money on a new PS3 console sale and isn't getting that money back lost. That's why if someone really wants to play PS2 games, Sony wants you to buy a PS2 because they make money off of that. If people want to play PS3 games or blu-rays (especially if a blu-ray is a Sony movie), then they want you to buy a PS3 because they will make money off of you when you buy games, accessories, etc. PS2 BC isn't coming back until PS2 stops selling, PS3 hardware costs greatly decrease, and when they finally get a 100% PS2 software emulator working (which requires zero hardware components). I'm not putting much hope into that happening, because the current Cell + RSX architecture makes it VERY difficult to do.

People near launch were whining about the $500/$600 price tag, when it costs Sony $800/$840 to produce the PS3 consoles. The main motherboard alone with all components (not including blu-ray drive, HDD, power supply, bluetooth, etc.) cost them $500. Even using a DVD drive, removing WiFi, HDD, and so on, PS3 would still cost over $600 to produce. Oh course over time, some of the costs have dropped (especially blu-ray drive, Cell and RSX shrunk, HDD prices dropped, etc.). However, the costs that didn't drop so much was the PS2 BC components (whether the EE was included or not) because they're towards the bottom of the exponential curve price wise (where they started out high, but costs have come down and has mostly remained fixed). It was being said that PS2 components contributed to 20-25% of the main PS3 motherboard price. The first thing Sony tried to do was cut out the EE (by emulating it, but still using PS2 components) along with some other changes, but PS3 was still around $600 or so to produce. People still cried and said they wanted a $400 PS3 (The $500 drop of the 60GB was NOT because of costs reduced. The 60GB was expensive and Sony was trying to phase it out. They phased out 20GB sooner because they were losing $300 on every console they sold, more than any other SKU). So Sony had to try to cut whatever they can to bring the costs down (people also need to understand that Sony including WiFi because some countries it's very important to have, and it's actually much cheaper and requires fewer components than PS2 BC). They couldn't remove bluetooth, blu-ray (although the newer blu-ray diodes don't make adding blu-ray all that more expensive), HDD, and so on. PS2 BC was not needed to make the PS3 function either, so that gave another excuse to remove it.

IMO, PS2 BC is very overrated. You can't be signed into PSN while playing them, have to reconnect the controllers, PS2 upscaling is terrible on PS3, not every game works regardless of SKU, some accessories will not work on PS3, and so on.

But right now everyone has a choice. Would they rather see a PS3 without PS2 BC at $400, or would they rather see a PS3 with PS2 BC selling at $500 as the only SKU? Regardless, If Sony never removed PS2 BC, we would NOT be seeing a PS3 selling at $400 right now. That is why removing it was not a big mistake, since people STILL have a issue with the PS3 pricetag. Just imagine that now, the cheapest PS3 on the market (but has PS2 BC, like a 40GB/80GB core configuration) selling at $500 (maybe as cheap as $450) against a $200 360 Arcade and $250 Wii. Does that seem like a good situation to be in for Sony?

[Kayden]

Jesus TMK... Why don't you apply for a market analysis position or something.

Do you fap to PS3 white papers?

[TruthinessFC]

At least he seems informed.. It would've been nice if Sony had kept the 60GB at a high price and reduced numbers just for people who had to have it, but otherwise I understand the move.

And honestly as I've told people on other sites, the PS2 plays PS2 games better than the PS3.